There will be no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform it's gun laws

[Jane2]

wow, the censorship is tight and skin is thin here! I guess calling someone a stuffed shirt is a heinous crime! Watch what you say, friends!

[paradox_error]

A mass shooting could have zero deaths. A shooting implies a person was shot, not that they had to die. And people don't have to die for shootings to be horrific.

Sometimes it seems to me that the media are only interested in deaths. Once the death count has been finalised, they can wring their hands a few times, pray for healing, and move on.

So my question is, if 20 people are shot and don't die, is it a mass shooting? For me it absolutely is.

[paradox_error]

Survivors are victims of mass shootings too

[Liza's Headband]

"So my question is, if 20 people are shot and don't die, is it a mass shooting? For me it absolutely is. "

But, speaking in statistics, it would not be considered a "mass shooting." And that is the entire point. Not if 20 injuries is tragic or not... Of course it is. But it would not meet the FBI's standards of a mass shooting. It's an incredibly simple thing to understand.

[FindingNamo]

As easy as "forcible rape"?

[ErikJ972]

I think it's also incredibly easy to understand that some people don't agree with the FBI's method of collecting stats.

[IAMWHATIAM]

Headband, you are engaging in a mind numbing game of fallacious logic here, and not even adhering to your own nonsensically espoused rules. To quote you upthread “Per the FBI: Mass Murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders.” Much of the discussion in this thread (and certainly in Diva’s and paradox_error’s posts) is about “mass shootings” (a term that I do not believe is defined by the FBI, or about which there is otherwise consensus on a set of definitional criteria). You can blather on until you are blue in the face, and harangue the good decent folks here for your own pleasure and enjoyment, but it isn’t, and will never be, accurate to deny that a shooting of any kind, mass or otherwise, really took place because the requisite number of deaths for a mass murder didn’t occur. You’re being obtuse and dogmatic, very obviously and purposefully, and, well, just plain silly. You can conflate your arguments all you want, but you will never “win” (which we all know is so supremely important to you) by arguing that a turkey isn’t a bird because it doesn’t walk like a duck or quack like a duck. It just isn’t a duck. I don’t know what your endgame is here, and I don’t much care. I, for one, will go back to simply ignoring your existence but, I sincerely beseech you, please leave this thread and let the important and topical discussion continue in earnest.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

[Applause Gif]

[SNAFU]

From Mother Jones:

What is a mass shooting?
Broadly speaking, the term refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. But there is no official set of criteria or definition for a mass shooting, according to criminology experts and FBI officials who have spoken with Mother Jones.

[Jane2]

My latest pillow for sale on Etsy.

[FindingNamo]

I'm sure the accessory agrees with me about forcible rape. I Meagan, he hasn't said anything so I guess that means it goes without saying.

[kade.ivy]

It's interesting that the article that started this thread is in response to the Santa Monica tragedy, in which half of the murders were committed with a knife by an obvious lunatic. It has been noted in this thread that crimes are committed by mentally unstable individuals. So if we make guns illegal for law-abiding citizens, I'm sure lunatics will not use them either.

I'm not sure we realize the dangers of a proposed change to the second amendment. If we abolish the Second Amendment, let's just abolish the first amendment and prohibit us from having this conversation right now.

The right to protect ourselves is necessary for a free state. If we are not able to protect ourselves, we do not have freedom.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Happily, exactly zero people so far have advocated abolishing the Second Amendment.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

I hate the word "freedom". I'm not sure I even know what it means anymore.

[kade.ivy]

Reginald, paljoey suggested negating it by rewording it to say that a militia is "no longer necessary for a free state." I am arguing (and think that the language of the amendment suggests) that a free state requires a militia, i.e., an amateur citizenry prepared to defend the "free" state.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Recently, it seems to mean something white hetero Christians are afraid gays, immigrants, and people of color are robbing them of.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Kade, revising does not mean abolishing or negating. And to my mind, random gun toters showing up at Walmart with assault rifles does not constitute a well-regulated militia.

[kade.ivy]

^^^ Ok, that made me laugh. Although I fully think that should be allowed without any problem (and should be protected under the Second Amendment), I've never heard of that happening. And, yes, we conservatives are just perpetrators of the evil, heteronormative patriarchy full of religious zealots, homophobes, and other people who disagree with liberals so we have to be labeled with blanket buzzwords.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Does protecting oneself have to equal unfettered access to every type of firearm? No one can seriously believe that that's what "a well-regulated militia" means. Or that the words "well-regulated" can be applied in any way to the current state of the relationship between America and guns. If a sh¡tload of guns is the only standard by which we measure freedom, what are we to make of countries like Australia or Canada or England or any other that country doesn't fetishize guns?

[Reginald Tresilian]

It's all over the news, sadly. Google it. And I disagree that the Second Amendment should be construed to read that every citizen is entitled to his own arsenal of assault weapons never envisioned by the founding fathers.

I never used the words "evil" or "conservative." If you see yourself in the list I made, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't, then good for you.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

a free state requires a militia, i.e., an amateur citizenry prepared to defend the "free" state.

Do you think this will likely be necessary?

[kade.ivy]

Jay, the framers of the Constitution saw it as a possibility. And if we keep releasing Taliban members I think that possibility increases. But that's a different discussion.

Reginald, I answer yes to all three of your criteria, but I don't want this thread to become a discussion about gay rights or immigration, topics on which my opinions are complex and would require more specific conversation.

I'm appreciating this dialogue!

[Reginald Tresilian]

If I understand you correctly and you're saying that freedom is something owed to white heterosexual Christians (and threatened by anyone outside that triumvirate), then there is no dialog occurring.

[kade.ivy]

I'm unsure of what I said to make you think I am suggesting that freedom is owed to one group and not another because I am by no means doing so. I was responding to your comment that you "don't know what to tell me." I was not meaning to suggest that I agree with your suggestion of a so-called threat. I have not used that word I do not feel that my freedom is being threatened by any social group. I interpreted your initial comment about the "triumvirate" of "threatened freedom" to be a tongue-in-cheek simplification of what you interpret as the viewpoints of one group. If you truly feel that way, I'm sorry. To simplify my viewpoint, I think we can both agree that freedom in a broad sense is owed to every human in the same degree. What that freedom entails is where we may differ.

[Reginald Tresilian]

As long as you're saying that freedom is in no way defined and/or enlarged or limited by religion, race, or sexual identity, I guess so.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Do you own a firearm, kade?